[Peace-discuss] Why Should the Senate Fund "Enduring" U.S. Military Bases in Afghanistan?

[Robert Naiman]

As I acknowledged from the beginning, you are free to say that
according to your individual, personal taste, it was not a meaningful
move.

But that Congress took a concrete, non-rhetorical, refusal-to-fund
step to limit "enduring" bases in Iraq that it has not taken with
respect to Afghanistan cannot be reasonably disputed.

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:23 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
>  But they still built the bases, and Congress continues to fund them.
>
> It was a quite limited victory, if a victory at all.
>
> On 8/26/10 7:52 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>
>> You missed something, or you're eliding it.
>>
>> In 2008, Congress rejected a Pentagon request for military
>> construction in Iraq, not because the Pentagon *called* it "long
>> term," but because it seemed to Congress that it *was* "long term."
>> They rejected it not because of what it was called, but because of
>> what it was. They did not insist on a name change. They refused to
>> fund the project.
>>
>> Congress has not made a similar move with respect to military
>> construction in Afghanistan.
>>
>> You can claim that such a move would not be sufficiently meaningful to
>> care about for your personal taste, but you cannot claim that such a
>> move would not be theoretically possible, because there is a
>> precedent.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:39 AM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  But the US bases in Iraq continue to be funded and built (even if the
>>> offending phrase is avoided), and the US remains in Iraq in a fashion
>>> that
>>> is clearly long-term.
>>>
>>> The US launched the Iraq war with two goals: (1) military bases in the
>>> midst
>>> of the world's greatest energy-producing region, and (2) control of the
>>> country with the world's second-largest oil reserves.  It's achieved
>>> both.
>>>
>>> But the policy is regional, including AfPak and Yemen.  The Obama
>>> administration is pursuing it vigorously, and avoiding the terms
>>> "long-term"
>>> or "enduring" won't change the policy.  Only de-funding it will do that.
>>>
>>> On 8/26/10 7:15 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The documentary record shows that Congress actually rejected funding
>>>> for Pentagon projects in Iraq that "seemed long-term."
>>>>
>>>> It has not done so in the case of Afghanistan.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, there is a difference that is not merely rhetorical. That
>>>> is an objective fact.
>>>>
>>>> As a matter of personal taste, you may not care about this difference.
>>>> "It's a free country," as we used to say in grade school.
>>>>
>>>> But to say that the difference does not exist, or is merely
>>>> rhetorical, is simply not accurate.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 6:55 AM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What possible good does it do to say that the bases are non-enduring if
>>>>> the
>>>>> money is voted for them?!
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to pressure Congress to vote against funding the war, not to
>>>>> find
>>>>> ways to put lipstick on this murderous pig (to borrow an Obama phrase).
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone really believe that that US military construction in Iraq
>>>>> was
>>>>> not "long-term," in spite of pious phrases from the Congress?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/25/10 2:30 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Walter Pincus reports in the Washington Post that the Pentagon is
>>>>> planning to build military bases in Afghanistan for years of U.S.
>>>>> combat. But the Senate could reject or restrict the money for such
>>>>> construction; a step Congress took in 2008, when it rejected a
>>>>> Pentagon request for military construction in Iraq that "seemed
>>>>> long-term."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/why-should-the-senate-fun_b_694437.html
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/25/15145/7039
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/689
>>>>>
>>>>> Action link for writing to the Senate:
>>>>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/afghanistanbases
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Robert Naiman
>>>>> Policy Director
>>>>> Just Foreign Policy
>>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from
>>>>> Afghanistan
>>>>> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern